Billy Claude
-
Posts
723 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Billy Claude
-
-
18 hours ago, Mat68 said:
He is wr 4 or 5. If he wasnt getting paid 10 mil per year he would still be with KC. He is better than any wr 4 Buffalo has had in a while. Has more speed outside than anyone since Jon Brown. MVS is a role player. Down the field he is pretty productive. Using him more underneath doesnt make him more efficient similar to Davis. The playoff game vs KC is the point. 2 similar throws and plays. Sherfield was not able to make the play. MVS did and has multiple times. He isnt coming in to have 1,000 yards and 10 tds he is being brought in to do what he has done his career.
I have to disagree with the bold. The best recent Bills WR4 was Gabe Davis is 2020 and 2021. I don't think there is any production statistic one can point to to say that MVS is better than Davis. Career wise, Davis has also been more productive in the playoffs than MVS.
To those who say Beane has never given Allen weapons, I would argue that the 2020 and 2021 receiving corps with top tier guys at WR1 (Diggs) and at slot (Beasley), a very good WR4 (Davis), and also a pretty productive gadget guy (McKenzie), were in fact, elite receiver groups.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Beck Water said:
Did anyone actually post his contract details?
Do we know his salary yet?
So basically he would have achieve none of these incentives last season (21 catches, 315 yds). Undoubtedly, the contract was designed that way to do not count against the 2024 salary cap. OTOH, he would have gotten $1M based on his 2022 stats (42 catches, 687 yards).
-
14 hours ago, BananaB said:
Keep believing that. The NFL has profited off Taylor Swift and they want to keep doing it. It’s good business, just pissing a lot of fans off.
The point is not whether the NFL made it easier for Swift to attend games. That is up to you to believe or not. The point was the click-bait tweet claimed the NFL admitted to it which is exactly the opposite of what actually occurred.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Lost said:
Must be nice to be an elite in this world. You can have an entire sports league you've had zero association with just 12 months prior completely bend to your will.
This is a purposedly misleading click-bait title. The original article states Mike North said the NFL had to adjust the schedule so that there were no conflicts with Taylor Swift concerts that were already scheduled in the various stadia. This is obvious. You can't have a Taylor Swift concert and a NFL game in the same arena on the same day or likely on adjacent days.
The duplicitous statement that Taylor Swift can attend 14 out of 17 Chiefs games is simply because those are the days she is not actually scheduled to have concerts. In fact, what Mike North said was that the NFL had to have those teams out of town when Swift concerts were scheduled in the same arena.
Whether you believed him or not, North denied allegations that the NFL scheduled games so that Swift could attend them. In particular, he specifically denied that they scheduled the Bills game to be at the same time as Swift's tour is in Toronto. You can 100% call BS on the NFL, but North definitely denies what the clickbait headline seems to imply that the NFL admitted to.
I detest this kind of purposedly misleading reporting.
-
8
-
1
-
1
-
-
It may have already started. I have a feeling we are going to see "the greatest wide receiver draft class ever" with increasing frequency in the coming years.
-
46 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:
And regular Joes/Janes put in 40-50 hours a week of real work get paid a pittance to what most athletes are getting nowadays. There comes a point when the resentment/jealousy/envy boils over and you’re done with being a fan.
People have been saying this since Babe Ruth signed his big contract and,
yet sports still becomes bigger every year even if individual sports wax and wane.
If the QBs salaries are an issue, the NFLPA is less dominated by the superstars, so I could see the NFLPA agreeing to a maximum percentage of the salary cap given to any one player.
-
20 hours ago, PBF81 said:
Thanks, and where I disagree is in that first bolded part, at least somewhat. After our Dallas game, he kept running Cook, 20, then 16, then 13 times/game, when Cook's average was beyond pedestrian, it was pathetic. It's nothing surprising that Cook's not a season-long 20 carry/game type, but we kept running him despite the lack of production. The team took a lot of heat for it right here even. Same in the playoffs where his production was low-end from a ypc perspective.
Thanks for the very thoughtful discussion.
I see your point on Cook but 13 rush attempts is not much but he did seem to run the same play a lot. In contrast, Allen's pass attempt numbers serve as evidence that Brady did adapt game to game though of course game situation matters:
NYJ 32, PHI 51, KC 42, DAL 15, SD 21, NE 30, MIA 38, PIT 30, KC 39
He clearly adapted the game plan for the Dallas defense and then tried the same thing against the Chargers but it didn't work. Defintiely not sold on Brady yet but at least he finished strong with a coherent game plan against the Chiefs.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:
That's a good topic for discussion. Is it a fair way to make the comparison? (BTW, I get 25.0 PPG, not 26.6. Did you remove the STs and D TDs in the NE & Miami games?)
I did not remove the special team and defensive touchdowns.
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:If it is a fair way to make the comparison, then here's what I noticed about that. You broke it down by the first 4 games and the last 6 games. But our first game, season opener, on the road, was far more like one of Brady's late season games than much else. I'd say games 2-4, then games 5-10, then games 11-14, and if we're going to apply the same standard, per your "unsustainable bump" comment above, and in fairness to the trend/pattern under Dorsey that began after four games, games 15-17. That's to start, but let's create an order for discussion here.
My feeling is with such a limited data set, removing too much would make it hard to draw any relevant conclusions. Also, I feel that the offense was actually doing fairly well in the Jets game until all the interceptions happen. In any case, if you pick and choose what to remove, you can come to any conclusion one wants.
The only reason why I split Dorsey's games into 4/6 is because I felt that those 6 games were what people are comparing to when they say Brady was much better than Dorsey.
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:We as a team have a history of "unsustainable bumps" in our season-long performances. We're typically very strong at the home-opener, and in the case of some games, typically at home, that are huge games. The Dallas game fell into that category last season. After our defensive collapse vs. the Eagles in allowing them their 2nd best offensive game on the season, a pall was cast over all things Bills. But then next week, if for no other motivation, we beat our nemesis the Chiefs, which offered a renewed albeit slim hope for making the playoffs much less winning the division. So we got up bigly (LOL) for the Dallas game and dusted them. But then things kinda fell apart from a performance perspective despite the fact that we won the next three games, entirely unimpressively it can be added.
Take the Chargers game. We barely beat the Chargers and managed only 24 offensive points, while allowing 22 points to them. First, this was a team fielding Easton Stick at QB, and to make matters less impressive, Ekeler at RB, and with two rookies, Derius Davis and Quentin Johnston at WR, perrenial 3/4 WR Palmer, journeyman Alex Erickson, and roster-bubble WR Jalen Guyton as their WR corp and with no TE of any significant consequence. That's an offensive skill position roster that makes our WR cadre look like an All-Pro team.
So was the defense holding that unit to 22 points and 273 yards, with Easton going a very efficient 23 of 33 for 215 passing yards, and another 25 rushing yards and a TD there, impressive? Consider as well, that we allowed more points to that Herbert-less Chargers team than any of the other four teams that played them. Additionally, five other teams held them to fewer points, a lot fewer in most cases, against the team when it had Herbert and Keenan Allen. 20, 17, 17, 10, and 6 there.
So was that defensive performance really impressive? ... or something to be regarded as something other than underachieving for a 4th ranked D?
I agree. The offense was still up and down even with Brady as OC. I was expecting the Bills to roll over the Chargers and Patriots in must win games and that obviously didn't happen. The defense was also inconsistent, they should have ate up the Chargers and Patriots backups QBs.
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:I won't go into the same detail, which also has mitigating circumstances per the above, like Zappe playing QB for NE, or the fact that the TD pass to Sherfield in the Miami game involved a lot of luck for that batted pass to end up where it did with Sherfield making a phenominal play after doing absolutely nothing significant all season. But let's break it down by those last three games however using the same metrics that you used above.
Brady Last Three Games:
363 YPG
32:46 ToP
19.3 PPG
What sticks out there?
Similar YPG. Marginally but relatively insignificant reduction in ToP. But what, a near TD/game drop in production.
So here's how I look at that and see more cause for concern than I do for hope. With an average advantage in those three games of 82 YPG, 5:32 in ToP, 3.7 more 1st Downs, not to mention Allen v. Schtick & Zappe in two of those games, yet only a .3 PPG advantage?
That's attributable to the offense. In short, ball movement was similar, but our ability to put points on the board diminished significantly, very significantly in fact. 19.3 PPG would have been good for 26th in the league that's how poor it was. And, at a time when every game was needed to simply make the playoffs. Moreover, it's not as if any of those defenses were any good. The Chargers ranked 24th, NE 15th, and Miami 22nd.
So getting back to the question, is how you presented it a fair way to make a comparison? Is it comprehensive? Obviously not.
I attribute it to the second bolded part, an unsustainable bump for a new coach, and, the meddling of a defensive-minded head coach who seemed to believe that the rushing from Cook in the Dallas game was sustainable over the long haul when there's absolutely nothing historically in his dossier that even remotely suggests that could even reasonably be the case. Right?
In fact, they talked about Allen running too much, then increased Allen's rushing load under Brady, going from 4.8 carries/game and 24.6 rushing yards, nearly doubling to 9.0 carries and 39.7 rushing yards. Is that really where this team with Allen needs to go as he ages?
I agree. A lot of the improvement in the offense came about because Allen was running so much more under Brady than Dorsey. I don't know if want to have Allen running so much except in must win games.
One thing I liked about Brady is that he did seem to be more willing to adjust game to game than Dorsey was. Another cause for confidence is that the offense was very effective in the playoffs against the Chiefs.
The Miami game, the Bills dominated. I have no criticism of how they played against the Dolphins. Sometimes you are just unlucky. Crap happens.
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:Cook under Brady, apart from that single outlier Dallas game, saw his YPC avg. plummet to 3.6 YPC with not a TD to be found. Is that sustainable? One might say that's why we drafted Davis. Well, OK, but that also involves an entirely different offensive mindset than pitched by McD a year ago and after ditching Moss, who once again, had a notably more prolific career both rushing and receiving than Davis did in college. Moss' draft profiles are greater than Davis' as well. So we'll see there, but honestly, why the hope there?
True, which is why I prefer as much info as possible.
I would say that the offense looked fantastic in games 2-4 and in games 11, 12, and 14 under Brady and similar to Dorsey's fast start, as both seemed to settle into, not even mediocrity, but well below-average production otherwise and considering that we have Allen. In our 11 other games we averaged 20.5 PPG, which on a season would be good for 20th on the season. So while it's nice that we can dust poor teams like the Raiders, the Skins with their league worst D, a hapless Jets team by the time we played them, a very overrated Eagles team, and even Dallas who came off of an emotionally draining huge Sunday night game the week before, and of course Miami, who all but literally cannot beat us since we've had Allen, it's the steady-stated that matters.
As to the two playoff games, our staff being out of answers on how to maximize our offensive roster, once again just stepped out of the way allowing Allen to do everything including running the ball, which they wisely said they wanted to get away from a year earlier thereby confusing matters even more, to the tune of over 40% of the rushing plays and all three rushing TDs.
That unsustainable seems to apply here as well.
Lastly, as to your statement where the offense looked unstoppable at the beginning of the season and then very out of joint at the end of the season.
Why do you think that is? Do the other teams that win their divisional round games suffer from the same, year in and year out?
Thoughts?
Almost every team goes through lulls. The Bills seem to last longer but maybe it only feels that way because we are more personally invested. In any case, I agree that we don't know how Brady is going to do this coming season. I am pretty neutral. When Daboll left, most people expressed a lot of confidence in Dorsey and many thought he was going to be an upgrade.
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:Neither do you. What we do know is what they say is not what they do.
Acquire Hines as a prolific pass catcher out of the backfield, then don't even remotely use him in that capacity.
All's well with Diggs when they've known or a while that it isn't.
Need a faster offense with a Cook type RB. Now we're going in the complete opposite direction.
There is some disconnect between Beane and the OC (or perhaps its Allen) about pass catching running backs. Beane has been signing pass catching RBs since he got here, from TJ Yeldon onwards. However, the Bills offense has steadfastly refused to use them.
19 hours ago, PBF81 said:Draft Davis, someone with a worse draft profile (nfl.com and pff et al.) than Moss, with Moss having been more prolific at everything with similar build and style.
There's more, but to start.
Otherwise, what is their plan? Is it evident?
Otherwise feel free to quit stalking me.
Come on now, McD openly stated in a press conference that he has zero answers as to solutions for our offense midseason last year.
Definitely not happy that the success of the Bills offense might need to have four receivers (Kincaid, Samuel, Shakir and Coleman) exceeding their production in any previous season. In Coleman's case, this might mean exceeding his college production. There was a few posts from last off-season saying that the Bills receiving corp would be the best ever because Sherfleld, and Hardy were going to have career years since they would be working with Allen and Dorsey would have more experience. Seems deja vu.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:
Here is what seems to be the most accepted formula. Google it and see for yourself how often this formula comes up.
https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/5/8/5683486/nfl-draft-trade-value-chart
This chart doesn't list the value of the following year's picks but it does list the Bills #10 at 1,300 for a return of 786 (for picks 27 and 91). Even if the 2018 pick closed the gap somewhat, does the fact that the Bills were in desperate need for a quarterback escape you? The following is the 2017 Bills roster. It lists 3 QBs:
1) Tyrod Taylor
2) Nate Peterman
3) Joe Webb
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf/2017_roster.htm
Does this appear to you to be a team that needed a cornerback more than a quarterback? If so, please help me understand your conclusion. Do ya think that KC Fans dislike ther fact that McDermott handed them a certain HOF QB, one of the best ever? Really, try to be serious.
You may see those of us who think this was an almost indescribably stupid deal as being "nonsensical. Frankly I find this comment to be rude and presumptous but that's just me. Am I happy with Josh? Very happy!!!! We are extremely lucky that he fell to us, unless of course you think that McDermott planned this at the time of the trade.
In any case, welcome to TSW.
Obviously this is an very inexact art and different trade charts will give different conclusions. I used the Hill chart because someone had mentioned it as highly respected.
My point was that almost no one complained about this trade two years ago and now, seven years after the fact, suddenly they are. That is what I find nonsensical, not the point value according to one chart or another.
-
12 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:
He can't. By now he is probably waving his pom poms, wearing an unusual outfit.
What would the equation be on McDermott's trade of the #10 pick (Mahomes) to KC?
Not sure if you were being sarcastic but I was interested in how the trade graded. Based on the 2024 Hill chart and using GunnerBill's valuing of next year's pick as being in the 16th spot of the next round:
Kansas City get #10 = 369 points, Buffalo gets #27 (216 pts), #91 (44 pts), and 1st RD following year #48 (121 pts) = 381 points so a +12 in the Bills favor.
I was not on the message board but I don't remember any of the talking heads saying if was a bad deal for the Bills at the time. Even two years ago, most Bills fans would do the trade again if given the opportunity. Those criticizing the trade 7 years after the fact are being nonsensical.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, PBF81 said:
Either way, this narrative that Allen improved under Brady is simply false. Nor did the offense improve. There was obviously a McDefense-driven shift to running the ball more, but the passes clearly did not get shorter, and even if that were true there should have been a significant improvement in Allen's efficiency metrics, particularly his completion-% which dropped by a massive 10%, given that it would have been a high-percentage passing game.
I am impressed with the effort you made in your analysis and I am also concerned that about how well Allen's skillset and mindset fits the short game spread the ball around philosophy.
To address a slightly different but related question, I think that the reason why people feel that "eye-test" shows that the offense improved with Brady is that they are not comparing Brady with Dorsey's entire 10 games 2023 season but just with Dorsey's last six games. They are also looking the the performance of the whole team, not just the offense. If we just look at a few team metrics:
Dorsey (first 4 games only): 391.0 yards per game, 34:18 time of possesion, 34.75 points per game (overtime data removed)
Dorsey (last 6 games only): 344.8 YPG, 26:50 TOP, 20.5 PPG
Dorsey(all 10 games): 363.3 YPG, 29:49 TOP, 26.2 YPG
Brady (7 games): 373.1 YPG 34:30 TOP, 26.6 PPG (overtime data removed)
You can see the teams metrics were significantly better under Brady compared to the last six games of Dorsey's tenure. Is this a fair way to make the comparison? Maybe not; Allen was fighting thru an injury during some of Dorsey's last games and there is often an unsustainable bump when a new coach comes in. Also the metrics used here are not completely offense and Dorsey's TOP numbers are strongly affected by the defense having just lost Milano and White. However, they are the stats (besides W-L) that leave the strongest impression with viewers.
As often is the case with a small data set, one can support different narratives using reasonable arguments to exclude or include different parts of the data. However, basically the same thing happened in 2022 where the offense looked unstoppable at the beginning of the season and then very out of joint at the end of the season.
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, RobbRiddick said:
Coleman seems pretty smart and articulate to me, but even if he wasn't, academic intelligence doesn't really mean much in sports. It's just about having a football brain, or a tennis brain or a soccer brain or whatever.
Marino was supposedly terrible at his wonderlic but his football IQ was off the charts. I'm sure Peterman was always top of the class in his Bible study group yet when it comes to making throws on the field he's the equivalent of someone who needs R and L writing on their shoes
Marino and Kelly both took the Wonderlic before anyone took it seriously. It is possible they just went through it as fast as possible. Pat McInally (Harvard and Bengals punter from the late 70s and early 80s) got a perfect grade of 50 on it and was later told that some teams passed on him because they thought he was too smart and would always be questioning the coaches.
In any case, I could imagine that people get lower grades on the Wonderlich than before since the last version I saw had a lot of mental math and there's not as much reason for people to do that kind of calculation in their heads these days.
-
13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
He went 35/37 on FGs between middle of his rookie year and mid 2nd season. That is where the impression comes from.
Not saying it is right or wrong but after some wobbles at the start of his rookie year he then wae pretty excellent for a period and that impression lasts.
Thanks for that. I never parsed it out that carefully. So he build his reputation by being elite for effectively one season out of four.
-
5 minutes ago, JESSEFEFFER said:
This may be true but we all suspect Beane was really, really upset that he didn't get a 3rd round comp pick so let's consider the value in making it right when done wrong.
Yes, definitely agree. In this case the Bills wanted to move down as much as the Chiefs wanted to move up so the net of zero points made sense.
-
30 minutes ago, GASabresIUFan said:
While certainly not a "bad" trade, it does look like the Bills didn't get any compensation for moving down. IMHO the team trading up should give more value than they receive just like Buffalo did in their 2022 and 2023 trade-ups and Carolina paid Buffalo on the second trade down in 2024.
For Example KC (28, 144, 248 = 223 pts), Buf (32, 95, 221 = 227) +4
It looks like the team trading up pays more points than they get about 2/3 of the time. This makes sense since a team will only trade up if there is a particular player that they want and so has more incentive to make the trade than the team trading down. Based on that it is slightly bad but certainly not one of the worse 8n 20 years as claimed by Walder.
-
Makes a lot of sense. I am surprised that at least state police doesn't already have a way to enforce this.
-
4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
I think since his rookie yr and excluding last season he was 19th, 15th, and 12th
I couldn't recall the exact numbers but I would say that qualifies as above average especially if you give him a small bump for weather conditions.
I'm on your side in this discussion. I have never understood people calling him elite.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
was he tho
I think he was between 10th and 15th rank kicker each year so above average is an accurate classification. I never understood the Bassamatic business.
-
45 minutes ago, MJS said:
Because he was performing like a top kicker until last year.
More accurately, he was performing as an above average kicker until last year.
-
On 5/8/2024 at 12:39 PM, Back2Buff said:
It seems highly doubtful that the KC/Buff trade was one of the 10 cheapest first round trade ups in 20 years. I went back three years and the KC trade-up was the 7th cheapest (out of 19) so in about the 30th percentile.
Here is the data in case anyone wants to dive in. Only trades involving only draft picks were assessed. All points totals are based on the 2024 Rich Hill trade chart and picks in a future year are evaluated at the highest point value for the next round for 2024 year, i.e., a third round pick in 2025 is given the same point value as the first pick of the 4th round of the 2024 draft. The same was done if a third round pick in the 2024 draft was obtained in the 2023 draft (independent of where the pick actually occurred). The +/- is the points gained by the team trading down. Teams trading down and obtaining less value than the trading up team are in boldface.
2024
MIN (gets 10, 203 => 374 pts), NYJ (gets 11, 129, 157 => 387) +13
MIN (17=>296), JAX (23, 167, RD 3, RD 4=>304) +8
DET (24, RD 7 => 238), DAL (29, 73 => 267) + 29
KC (28, 133, 248 => 227), BUF (32. 95. 221 => 227) +0
CAR (32, 200 => 189), BUF (33, 141 => 194) +5
2023
TEX (3, 105 => 546), ARI (12, 33, RD1, RD3 => 741) +195 (the large value indicates that I am most likely overvaluing future year picks)
ARI (6, 81 => 501), DET (12. 34. 168 => 531) +30
PHI (9 => 387), CHI (10, RD 4 => 385) -2
PIT (14 => 325), NE (17, 120 => 319) -6
NYG (24 => 237), JAX (25, 160, 240 => 242) +5
BUF (25 => 230), JAX (27, 130 => 234) +4
2022
NO (11 => 368), WAS (16, 98, 120 =>365 ) -3
DET (12, 46 => 475), MIN (32. 34, 66 => 435 ) -40
NO (16, 18, 194 => 589), PHI (18, 101, RD 1, RD 2 => 581) -8
PHI (13 => 336), TEX (15, 124, 162, 166 => 355) +19
KC (21 => 261), NE (29, 94, 121 => 266) +5
BUF (23 => 245), BAL (25, 130 -> 248) +3
NYJ (26, 101 => 257), TEN (35, 69, 163 => 251) -6
JAC (27 => 216), TB (33, 106, 180 => 220) +4
You can see two outliers, the 2022 Lions tradeup with the Vikings in which Minnesota lost 40 points and the Texan tradeup with Arizona where Arizona gained 195 points. The latter may have been because I was valuing future picks too highly. In any case, it appears that the Bills Chief trade is still in the main portion of the distribution.
-
1
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Freddie's Dead said:
Bodork says hi.
Sam Martin has been in the league 11 years. If he was horrible at holding he would have been out of the league a long time ago.
-
1
-
-
53 minutes ago, skibum said:
Am I crazy, or is this by far the worst roster on paper we have had since the drought?
Slight exaggeration but possibly since 2019? That is, unless a bunch of best case scenarios occur and addition by subtraction really applies.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:
I'm not defending that model. I have criticised it. But spending lots of capital on defensive front 7 and not much on wide receivers is Beane's MO. It is the team building ethos he grew up in. I'd like to see him flex too but I'd not sure he is going to.
If they got one Chris Jones/TJ Watt type game changer out of all that investment it would probably have been enough for the Bills to win a Super Bowl. So at least partially, it was a matter of execution rather than philosophy.
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
Yeah. It’s odd because even if a team isn’t using its fourth QB much they have him there in case someone needs time off. Dead arm, injury, fatigue, whatever. Training camps aren’t as intense as they used to be, but stuff still happens.
It looks like they only had three in 2023 also (Allen, Allen & Barkley) and 2022 (Allen, Keenum & Barkley) also.
-
1
-
Marquez Valdes-Scantling meeting with the Bills (UPDATE: Signed)
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
It's a bit unfair to compare MVS's best years statistically to say he would be as good a WR4 as Davis was in 2020 and 2021.
If you compare his last two seasons to the 20 & 21 Davis seasons, MVS falls short in every category; 63 vs 70 receptions, 1002 vs 1148 yards and 3 vs 13 TDs.